Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?
The show is ridiculously careful not to give free plugs, to the point
of blurring guest's t-shirts, but it's hard to miss the ridiculous
"G0555" across the top of the saw. <G> One of the only other
identifiers I ever seen on the show that wasn't blurred is the
P-O-W-E-R-M-A-T-I-C along the top of the table saw fence.
It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.
"Locutus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "BillyBob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?
> >
> >
> > what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?
> >
> > Never heard of it.
> >
>
> whaaa???
>
> Mythbusters is a TV show.
>
> A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
> time...)
>
>
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:37:32 -0700, Richard Clements
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Certain shows can actually have some value. I actually get a great
>> kick out from some of the problem solving trains of thought on
>> Mythbusters, as well as Carrie's butt. <G>
>
>don't we all! and watching Adam hurt himself is amusing too
Pure entertainment!
Some of the best shows are when they aren't all that successful. I
like the way they share what went wrong. Did you happen to see the
fire in the shipping container that melted the camera, all INSIDE the
shop? <G>
I also like when they occasionally share the "You guys are morons!"
email!
Barry
Leuf wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:42:35 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Locutus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Mythbusters is a TV show.
> >>
> >> A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
> >> time...)
> >>
> >It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
> >tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
> >are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
> >that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.
Yes, I agree. I watch almost no television other than the occasional
sporting event. I was out with some folks last night that brought up
half a dozen shows with which I was completely unfamiliar. Based on
the content of the discussion, though, it didn't appear that I was
depriving myself of much. YMMV.
When I was younger (than I am now at 35) I watched a lot of tube. Now
I prefer to live, rather than live vicariously.
JP
***************************
>From atop the soapbox.
Robert still qualifies as Geek. Arguably an Out of Date Geek, perhaps,
but a geek who's not current on kinda geeky tv shows is still a geek.
One could even claim that although the audience for Mythbusters is
heavily geek, that's not their intended audience.
If Robert had said he didn't know about Robot Wars or Battlebots, now
that WOULD be grounds for a geek tribunal.
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Robert Haar" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
> > actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
> > involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
> > adolescents with a home chemistry set?
> >
>
> First and formost, it is a TV show. As such, they have both time and
> budgetary constraints. But as special effects guys, they can be wildly
> creative within those constraints. Added to this is that they are kinda
> funny guys. Add a demented support staff, including at least one totally hot
> babe, it can get humorous at times.
Please post pics.
JP
Jay Pique wrote:
> Lee Michaels wrote:
> > "Robert Haar" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >
> > > I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
> > > actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
> > > involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
> > > adolescents with a home chemistry set?
> > >
> >
> > First and formost, it is a TV show. As such, they have both time and
> > budgetary constraints. But as special effects guys, they can be wildly
> > creative within those constraints. Added to this is that they are kinda
> > funny guys. Add a demented support staff, including at least one totally hot
> > babe, it can get humorous at times.
>
> Please post pics.
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/meet/meet_03.html
> > > what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?
> > >
> > > Never heard of it.
> > >
> > >
> > It is a show on Discover channel.
> >
> > http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
> >
> > It is fun, backyard science as imagined by two hollywood special effects
> > guys.
> >
> > It ain't hard science. But it does addres many popular myths in a
> hollywood
> > sort of way.
>
> Thanks for the factual, complete reply. I don't have cable, so I've never
> seen it.
How old ARE you guys? ;-)
In article <%[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
>tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
>are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
>that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.
"Television is a medium.
Proof:
It is not rare.
It is not well done."
In article <[email protected]>,
Locutus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"BillyBob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?
>>
>>
>> what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?
>>
>> Never heard of it.
>>
>
>whaaa???
>
>Mythbusters is a TV show.
>
>A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
>time...)
>
>
Rumor mill hath it that the thience on the thhow ith thomewhat 'hit or myth'.
Oh thit. my lithp is thowing.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:43:49 -0500, Robert Haar <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 2006/3/19 12:49 AM, "Leuf" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately if you are sufficiently geeky to know about usenet and
>> like to build things you have no excuse not to know about Mythbusters.
>
>I'm a certified geek and have been a denizen of Usenet for about thirty
>years, and I am a serious amateur woodworker - but I know nothing about this
>Mythbusters program.
>
>I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
>actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
>involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
>adolescents with a home chemistry set?
They are somewhere in between. First they try to prove/disprove the
myth as stated. If the myth proves false they then take progressively
larger liberties trying to make the spirit of the myth occur. For
example, in the last episode they tested whether a raft filled with
helium could lift a person off the ground. Well it's not much fun to
fill a raft with helium and have it do the obvious. So the next step
is to figure out how huge a raft would have to be to actually do it
and then build it. They are Hollywood effects guys so they are real
good at finding practical solutions for physical tests. They are less
good about things like getting enough data to have statistical
relevance.
This quote from a recent online chat they had pretty much covers it:
"Unfortunately, in the interests of the time constraints put on us by
American television, some things end up on the cutting room floor. And
it has always ticked Jamie off a little bit that the show seems to
favor me falling on my ass over him explaining some esoteric concept."
I think the best part is they show their mistakes, and for the most
part they'll admit to them, and if necessary come back and revisit the
myth in a later show to get it right. Still waiting for an admission
of royally screwing up that arrow myth though.
>> It's a fact.
>
>If this is what you think of as a fact, I have my answer about the show.
It's a fact that neither of you have any excuse. You may want to
check the expiration date on your geek certificate. The two of you
aren't a statistically large enough sample to disprove me.
-Leuf
"BillyBob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?
>
>
> what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?
>
> Never heard of it.
>
whaaa???
Mythbusters is a TV show.
A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
time...)
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when
> you
> tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
> are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of
> us
> that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.
>
As someone else pointed out, if you can find the usenet and you like to
build things, I am not sure how you never heard of Mythbusters.
Ba r r y wrote:
> On Sun, 1Ader 2006 04:42:35 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when
>>you tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think
>>you are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some
>>of us that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.
>
> I actually HATE TV, but that's what TiVo is for!
>
> Cramming 2 hours of what you REALLY want to watch into an hour or so
> at bed time. When you doze off, it's easy to pick it up again later.
>
> No BS, no commercials, what you want, when you want it. TiVo makes TV
> watchable.
>
> Certain shows can actually have some value. I actually get a great
> kick out from some of the problem solving trains of thought on
> Mythbusters, as well as Carrie's butt. <G>
don't we all! and watching Adam hurt himself is amusing too
--
if corn oil comes from corn,
and olive oil comes from olives
where dose baby oil come from?
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Locutus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"BillyBob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?
>>>
>>>
>>> what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?
>>>
>>> Never heard of it.
>>>
>>
>>whaaa???
>>
>>Mythbusters is a TV show.
>>
>>A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
>>time...)
>>
>>
>
> Rumor mill hath it that the thience on the thhow ith thomewhat 'hit or
> myth'.
>
>
> Oh thit. my lithp is thowing.
>
>
?????? Ok......
"Robert Haar" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
> actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
> involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
> adolescents with a home chemistry set?
>
First and formost, it is a TV show. As such, they have both time and
budgetary constraints. But as special effects guys, they can be wildly
creative within those constraints. Added to this is that they are kinda
funny guys. Add a demented support staff, including at least one totally hot
babe, it can get humorous at times.
On 2006/3/19 12:49 AM, "Leuf" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Unfortunately if you are sufficiently geeky to know about usenet and
> like to build things you have no excuse not to know about Mythbusters.
I'm a certified geek and have been a denizen of Usenet for about thirty
years, and I am a serious amateur woodworker - but I know nothing about this
Mythbusters program.
I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
adolescents with a home chemistry set?
> It's a fact.
If this is what you think of as a fact, I have my answer about the show.
"Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?
what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?
Never heard of it.
"BillyBob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?
>
>
> what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?
>
> Never heard of it.
>
>
It is a show on Discover channel.
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
It is fun, backyard science as imagined by two hollywood special effects
guys.
It ain't hard science. But it does addres many popular myths in a hollywood
sort of way.
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "BillyBob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?
> >
> >
> > what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?
> >
> > Never heard of it.
> >
> >
> It is a show on Discover channel.
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
>
> It is fun, backyard science as imagined by two hollywood special effects
> guys.
>
> It ain't hard science. But it does addres many popular myths in a
hollywood
> sort of way.
Thanks for the factual, complete reply. I don't have cable, so I've never
seen it.
Bob
"Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?
>
> The show is ridiculously careful not to give free plugs, to the point
> of blurring guest's t-shirts, but it's hard to miss the ridiculous
> "G0555" across the top of the saw. <G> One of the only other
> identifiers I ever seen on the show that wasn't blurred is the
> P-O-W-E-R-M-A-T-I-C along the top of the table saw fence.
Speaking of said Powermatic - did anybody catch the episode where they built
a mock-up of the Ark of the Covenant? First the builder is shown fondling
the wood in his truck. "Oooh, look at this beautiful wood!" In the next shot
he's pushing wood through the saw using his entire body weight and smoke is
billowing off the blade. All of the finished pieces were blackened.
BillyBob wrote:
> "Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?
>
>
>
> what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?
>
> Never heard of it.
>
>
Yes TV show. Pretty good. You can see some of their shows on the
internet as well.
--
Thank you,
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
Ba r r y wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2006 16:03:03 -0800, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>If Robert had said he didn't know about Robot Wars or Battlebots, now
>>that WOULD be grounds for a geek tribunal.
>
>
> But a real geek still would have looked it up rather than waiting for
> a response. <G>
[tongue in cheek]
No. On the contrary, a real geek won't pass up the opportunity to point
out and circumscribe logical deficiencies in another's assertion.
:)
er
--
email not valid
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:42:35 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Locutus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Mythbusters is a TV show.
>>
>> A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
>> time...)
>>
>It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
>tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
>are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
>that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.
Unfortunately if you are sufficiently geeky to know about usenet and
like to build things you have no excuse not to know about Mythbusters.
It's a fact.
I'm still kinda peeved they can't grasp the concept of wood grain in
the splitting an arrow myth though.
-Leuf
On 19 Mar 2006 16:03:03 -0800, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>If Robert had said he didn't know about Robot Wars or Battlebots, now
>that WOULD be grounds for a geek tribunal.
But a real geek still would have looked it up rather than waiting for
a response. <G>
Barry
On 19 Mar 2006 18:22:29 -0800, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"But a real geek still would have looked it up rather than waiting for
>a response. <G> "
>
>Damn. Curse you and your use of logic! I am foiled.
You've learned the lesson, so you may keep the card...
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> gw wrote:
> > In the next shot
> > he's pushing wood through the saw using his entire body weight and smoke
is
> > billowing off the blade. All of the finished pieces were blackened.
>
>
> They're set carpenters, not fine woodworkers.
>
> Remember, those guys also weld, sculpt, blow mold, wire etc...
>
> Ever see the "ballistics gel" mold leak all over? <G>
Just imagine all the things that have been shoved through that saw. Steel,
plastics, meat and bone, and who knows what else. I would imagine that
blade is about as thrashed as it could be, and probably won't get changed
until it breaks. It just needs to make it through the material, doesn't need
to be pretty to get busted up.
CW wrote:
> It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
> tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
> are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
> that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.
Um. What's a TV show?
er
--
email not valid
Leuf wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:42:35 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>"Locutus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Mythbusters is a TV show.
>>>
>>>A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
>>>time...)
>>>
>>
>>It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
>>tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
>>are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
>>that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.
>
>
> Unfortunately if you are sufficiently geeky to know about usenet and
> like to build things you have no excuse not to know about Mythbusters.
> It's a fact.
>
> I'm still kinda peeved they can't grasp the concept of wood grain in
> the splitting an arrow myth though.
Or the ability to train soldiers to use a mirror.
er
--
email not valid
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:42:35 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
>tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
>are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
>that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.
I actually HATE TV, but that's what TiVo is for!
Cramming 2 hours of what you REALLY want to watch into an hour or so
at bed time. When you doze off, it's easy to pick it up again later.
No BS, no commercials, what you want, when you want it. TiVo makes TV
watchable.
Certain shows can actually have some value. I actually get a great
kick out from some of the problem solving trains of thought on
Mythbusters, as well as Carrie's butt. <G>
The [email protected] entity posted thusly:
>If Robert had said he didn't know about Robot Wars or Battlebots, now
>that WOULD be grounds for a geek tribunal.
A real geek knows the difference between a robot and a
radio-controlled vehicle, and looks down his nose at the latter,
refusing to waste time on it.
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:06:41 -0500, "Locutus"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
>time...)
>
Sometimes you just have to go with the entertainment value.
gw wrote:
> In the next shot
> he's pushing wood through the saw using his entire body weight and smoke is
> billowing off the blade. All of the finished pieces were blackened.
They're set carpenters, not fine woodworkers.
Remember, those guys also weld, sculpt, blow mold, wire etc...
Ever see the "ballistics gel" mold leak all over? <G>
On 3/19/2006 4:43 PM Robert Haar mumbled something about the following:
> On 2006/3/19 12:49 AM, "Leuf" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately if you are sufficiently geeky to know about usenet and
>> like to build things you have no excuse not to know about Mythbusters.
>
> I'm a certified geek and have been a denizen of Usenet for about thirty
> years, and I am a serious amateur woodworker - but I know nothing about this
> Mythbusters program.
>
> I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
> actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
> involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
> adolescents with a home chemistry set?
>
>> It's a fact.
>
> If this is what you think of as a fact, I have my answer about the show.
>
>
>
You start out saying you know nothing about the show, then you ask if
they've advanced beyond adolescents, then you say you have your answer
about the show. Obviously, you know SOMETHING about the show, but wish
to remain ignorant about it while condemning it.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
>>
>>I'm a certified geek and have been a denizen of Usenet for about thirty
>>years, and I am a serious amateur woodworker - but I know nothing about this
>>Mythbusters program.
You're not as much of a geek as you think you are.
Google and Wikipedia BOTH have full descriptions and official sites
that would have told you all about it once you heard about it here.
Sorry, please leave your geek pass with the receptionist, it's been
revoked! <G>
Barry
"BillyBob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:LF8Tf.6431$>> >
>
> Thanks for the factual, complete reply. I don't have cable, so I've never
> seen it.
>
> Bob
Cable, or Satellite TV or any of the other premium programming providers.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:28:24 -0500, Leuf <[email protected]>
wrote:
>They are somewhere in between. First they try to prove/disprove the
>myth as stated. If the myth proves false they then take progressively
>larger liberties trying to make the spirit of the myth occur. For
>example, in the last episode they tested whether a raft filled with
>helium could lift a person off the ground. Well it's not much fun to
>fill a raft with helium and have it do the obvious. So the next step
>is to figure out how huge a raft would have to be to actually do it
>and then build it. They are Hollywood effects guys so they are real
>good at finding practical solutions for physical tests. They are less
>good about things like getting enough data to have statistical
>relevance.
No, first they proved that the myth was false, they filled a raft with
helium and it couldn't even lift it's own weight. So they tried a
variety of rafts with the same results. Myth busted. Then they try
to replicate the spirit of the myth if they can. Whether or not they
can replicate the spirit of the myth, it was busted the minute the
raft failed to float.